On July 13, 2018 10:00 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While this does technically bring everyone closer to the same amount of
> money, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. This also doesn't fix
> the gap in land ownership. I really think we need to do a map reset to
> achieve maximum equality.

Yes, I'm not entirely satisfied with it either. But a full reset feels unfair 
to the people who have already been putting effort into the economy. If we can 
adjust it so that it's at least somewhat more accessible for new players, I'm 
not convinced that it's entirely necessary to erase all progress so far.

I have a vague idea for a land equalisation proposal similar to this one, but 
I'm not quite ready to submit a proposal just yet.

> I don't recall who, but someone said that each different auction system had
> its own benefits, which I agree with. I really think alternating between 5
> auctions and one is the best way to run these auctions. So let it be known
> that I while would support this, I think there's a better way to do it.

I'm about to submit a different proposal that keeps some of the advantages of 
the 5-auctions system; let me know what you think?

> Too cheap, and also I don't really like having all of this information
> under the assets rule. I suggest moving all the library special details to
> another rule.

I did um and ah about the cost - in my original draft, it cost 5 lumber and 5 
paper (with similarly higher upgrade costs). But I realised that most people 
only have a small number of facilities, so it would take a really long time for 
the library to pay for itself. I agree it _seems_ cheap but I think it needs to 
be in order to be useful. I'm not averse, though, to raising the cost if 
several people think it wise - although it must be said that it's not a 
priority since this proposal will probably not be got to for at least a couple 
of weeks.
I respectfully disagree about the position of the special details; I see the 
existing upkeep costs rule as the "core" system, and this as an alternative 
that overrides it for library-owners, and so I feel that keeping it with the 
mechanism that _causes_ the override (the definition of libraries) makes more 
sense. (But again, if everyone disagrees I wouldn't object strongly to moving 
it; it's not like the position of the rule in the ruleset makes any difference 
to its interpretation. I think.)

> Yeah but how do you get sand? And glass should be given a purpose, even if
> it is just as a building material.

Ah, I completely forgot to add a new production facility for sand. My bad. 
Though, to be perfectly honest, this was not really polished enough for 
submission; I mainly included it as lorem ipsum in the hope that people would 
not bother reading all the text and not notice the declarations of apathy. :P

> I object to all intents to declare apathy in the quoted message.

Eh. It was worth a try. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Reply via email to